The Railway Labor Act and Congressional Action

Legal Sidebari

The Railway Labor Act and Congressional
Action
Updated March 30, 2023
The Railway Labor Act (RLA; 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) governs disputes between railway carriers and
labor unions. Beginning in 2019, labor unions representing railway employees and the National Carriers’
Conference Committee (which represents the railway carriers) took part in direct negotiations over
employee pay, hours of service, and benefits. In September 2022, following recommendations by the
Presidential Emergency Board, the parties reached a tentative agreement, subject to ratification by union
members. During October and November 2022, the members of four unions voted to reject their contracts
with the carriers, jeopardizing the agreement. Following these events, the unions entered into a “cooling-
off period” that was scheduled to end on December 9, 2022, which could have culminated into a
nationwide railway strike. To avoid a strike, the 117th Congress passed H. J. Res 100, implementing the
recommendations of the Presidential Emergency Board. President Biden signed the joint resolution into
law on December 2, 2022.
In response to future disputes between railway carriers and labor unions, Congress may consider various
options, including extending the cooling-off period requiring the parties to maintain the status quo or
implementing the terms of either an unratified agreement or the recommendations of the Presidential
Emergency Board. This Sidebar provides background on the RLA and discusses executive and legislative
action to resolve the 2022 dispute.
Railway Labor Act (RLA)
Congress enacted the RLA in 1926 in response to the nation’s growing reliance on railroads and as part of
a pattern of federal attempts at regulating labor relations in the industry. The statute is broken into two
subchapters, with the first generally dealing with the railway carriers and the second, added by
amendment in 1936, dealing with air carriers. The statute’s purposes, stated in 45 U.S.C. § 151a, are to
prevent any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier; forbid any limitation on the right
of employees to join a labor union; provide for the independence of carriers and employees in self-
organization; and provide prompt settlement of disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working
conditions and disputes growing out of grievances or the interpretation or application of agreements.
The RLA provides dispute resolution processes for railway carriers and labor unions. It also establishes a
National Railroad Adjustment Board (NRAB) and a National Mediation Board (NMB). The NRAB,
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10861
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
which is an adjudicatory board, has primary jurisdiction over minor disputes growing out of grievances or
out of the interpretation or application of agreements between rail labor unions and carriers. In contrast,
for major disputes concerning changes in rates of pay, rules, or working conditions and “[a]ny other
dispute not referable to the [NRAB],” there are lengthy requirements of bargaining and mediation
between labor unions and railway carriers before the NMB.
Under 45 U.S.C. § 160, if the NMB determines that a dispute could “threaten substantially to interrupt
interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation
service,” it shall notify the President, who then may decide to issue an Executive Order to “create a board
to investigate and report respecting such dispute.” The board, known as the Presidential Emergency
Board, has 30 days to issue its recommendations to the President, and the parties must maintain the status
quo for an additional 30 days after the issuance of the report. During this 60-day period known as the
cooling-off period, “no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in
the conditions out of which the dispute arose.” The Supreme Court has described the cooling-off
requirements in the RLA as stopping “the union from striking and management from doing anything that
would justify a strike.” If no agreement is reached at the end of the cooling-off period, the parties may
engage in self-help, including through strikes, lockouts, and changes in terms and conditions of
employment.
Presidential Emergency Board Recommendations and 2022 Dispute
Direct negotiations between the railway carriers and labor unions representing railway employees began
in November 2019 over employee wages, benefits, workloads, and duty schedules, among other topics.
By February 2022, the unions had filed mediation applications with the NMB. In July 2022, mediation
ended, and the NMB notified President Biden, in accordance with 45 U.S.C. § 160, that the dispute
threatened substantially to interrupt interstate commerce. On July 15, President Biden issued an Executive
Order establishing a Presidential Emergency Board.
On August 16, 2022, Presidential Emergency Board No. 250 issued its recommendations. These
recommendations included changes to employee wages and benefits such as:
 increase wages (24% over the life of the contract) during the five-year period from 2020
through 2024;
 additional $5,000.00 in service recognition bonus payments;
 removal of the cap on monthly employee contributions to health plans;
 increase the annual maximum for hearing benefits to $2,000.00; and
 an additional personal day per year.
The Board recommended that the labor unions withdraw their proposal to include paid sick leave.
On September 15, 2022, following negotiations with the Biden Administration, the parties reached a
tentative agreement subject to ratification votes by union memberships. Industry groups, such as the
Association of American Railroads, announced that the tentative agreement included “a 24 percent wage
increase during the five-year period from 2020 through 2024, including an immediate payout on average
of $11,000 upon ratification,” but that the agreement did not include paid sick leave and other items that
had been the subject of prior negotiations. The agreement was also reported to extend the cooling-off
period until after the union membership voted either to approve or reject new contracts. For more
information on the dispute negotiations, please see CRS Insight IN11966, Legislation to Avert Railroad
Strike Advances, by Ben Goldman.
After reaching the agreement, eight unions involved in the dispute voted to ratify new contracts, and four
unions voted to reject. On October 10, 2022, members of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way

---

Congressional Research Service
3
Employes Division, the third-largest railway union, rejected ratification. On October 23, 2022, the
members of a second union, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, announced that its members had
rejected ratification. The unions initially stated that their cooling-off periods would expire on November
19, 2022. On November 14, 2022, a third union, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
announced that its members had also rejected ratification. In a split decision, train and engine service
members of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers’
Transportation Division voted to reject their proposed contract, while the union’s yardmaster members
voted to accept it.
Considerations for Congress and Legislative Developments
Article I, Section 8, clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution confers Congress with broad authority to regulate
interstate and foreign commerce. In 1917, the Supreme Court confirmed that this authority empowers
Congress to intervene in rail labor disputes that threaten to disrupt interstate commerce. Following a
bargaining impasse and strike threat that would have affected the entire country, Congress enacted a law
that established an eight-hour workday and temporarily regulated the wages for employees of railway
carriers engaged in interstate and foreign commerce. The carriers challenged the law, arguing that
Congress lacked the authority to enact it. In Wilson v. New, the Court concluded that Congress’s authority
over railway carriers in interstate commerce was within its legislative power to regulate commerce and
“not subject to dispute.” The Court contended that Congress has the ability to “guard against the cessation
of interstate commerce” by responding legislatively to a failure of employers and employees to agree to
work conditions, such as a wage standard that was “an essential prerequisite to the uninterrupted flow of
interstate commerce.”
Pursuant to its constitutional authority, Congress has intervened on several occasions to respond to rail
disputes that were not resolved under the RLA’s procedures. These resolutions sought to resolve the
disputes using various approaches. For example, P.L. 99-385, a “Joint Resolution to provide for a
temporary prohibition of strikes or lockouts with respect to the Maine Central Railroad Company and
Portland Terminal Company labor-management dispute,” extended the final cooling-off period by an
additional 60 days. Another example, P.L. 100-429, a “Joint Resolution to provide for a settlement of the
labor-management dispute between the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company and the
United Transportation Union,” imposed the Presidential Emergency Board’s recommendations on the
parties. Other laws provided for the establishment of another board to investigate the dispute and issue a
binding determination or for the parties to submit an unresolved dispute to binding arbitration.
To resolve the 2022 dispute, Members of Congress introduced joint resolutions that would have imposed
Presidential Emergency Board No. 250’s recommendations if certain conditions were not met. H. J. Res.
100, enacted in December 2022, made binding “the most recent tentative agreements, side letters, and
local carrier agreements entered into by the covered parties” that the parties had not yet ratified,
effectively implementing the Presidential Emergency Board recommendations. To try to address railroad
employees’ concerns regarding sick leave, which the recommendations omitted, the House passed H.
Con. Res. 119 (117th Congress). This measure was not agreed to in the Senate, where the vote was 52-43
under an order requiring 60 votes for adoption.

---

Congressional Research Service
4
Author Information

Jimmy Balser
Madeline W. Donley
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney


Jon O. Shimabukuro

Legislative Attorney




Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10861 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED

---